This year’s Fulton Debate winner, Kevin Hartzell, A&S ’01, will have his name painted on the wall in Gasson 305 along with 108 of the debate’s past winners. Hartzell was awarded the honor after last Thursday’s annual Fulton debate. The topic of the debate was: “Resolved: that the United States remove all economic sanctions against Iraq.”
Lynze Fox, A&S ’01, and Chris Schroeck, A&S ’04, represented the negative side against Hartzell and Paul Sutton, A&S ’03.
The debate followed the format of four eight-minute constructive speeches, four three-minute cross examination sessions and four four-minute rebuttal speeches before the judges awarded a winner.
“Sanctions have destroyed Iraq,” argued Sutton. “They are falling apart at the seems, they kill innocent Iraqis, and they do not affect Iraq’s military.” Sutton supported his argument with the fact that only the United States and the United Kingdom support the sanctions.
Sutton added that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein receives more money now than before the sanctions were implemented and “1.5 million people have died, 6,000 people a day — the equivalent of a small Irish town … We have empowered Saddam by forcing him to smuggle.”
In her cross-examination, Fox asked Sutton to rethink how lifting the sanctions will prevent Hussein from putting more money into his military.
In his argument for the need of sanctions, Schroeck noted that sanctions should not be removed, but improved “smart sanctions” should be implemented.
Schroeck responded to Sutton’s three arguments by noting the success of the existing sanctions. “Saddam has not threatened other countries since the sanctions were put into place,” he said. “Just because something collapses doesn’t mean you give up. If we give him more money, he will become more evil than ‘The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.’”
“We aren’t holding money back from Saddam,” Schroeck said to clarified Sutton’s point. “He is holding the people of his nation hostage. He has access to a United Nations escrow account of money for food and medical supplies for his people, but he chooses to build his military.”
At the same time he noted that the sanction have stopped Hussein from rebuilding his military, leaving him with out-dated equipment.
While cross-examining Schroeck, Sutton questioned the list of materials on a “smart sanction” list, noting the number of dual-use items, such as medical chemicals.
“Smart sanctions will not help because the existing sanctions lack support from the national community,” argued Hartzell. “Saddam hasn’t created the suffering, we did. Genocide with a smile is still genocide and the sanction still hurt innocent citizens.”
Hartzell’s stance that the sanctions should be removed echoed Sutton’s argument that the sanctions have killed innocent Iraqis.
“Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the Gulf War and he still has them now,” he said. “The sanctions policy has killed more people than all of the weapons of mass destruction in the world combined.”
In Schroeck’s cross-examination of Hartzell, Schroeck pointed out that countries do support the existing sanctions, although Hartzell referred to these countries as “lackeys.”
“The weapons Hussein has now are less than before. It shows the sanctions work,” Fox said to counter Hartzell and Sutton’s desire to abolish the sanctions.
Fox also pointed out that Hussein lacks a delivery system for his nuclear weapons, which bars him from using the ones he has.
According to Fox, sanctions would further prevent him from using these weapons. “What Hussein has with these sanctions are only a drop in the bucket compared to what he would have if the sanctions were lifted,” she said. “We don’t want to look soft. We want to maintain a hard stance.”
Hartzell used his cross-examination time to prove that Fox and Schroeck’s reasons for maintaining the sanctions would lead one to sanction the entire world.
During the closing statements, each debater reinforced his or her point for the evening.
“Smart sanctions will always be the best policy because more of the smaller countries will begin to follow,” argued Schroeck.
Sutton’s closing statement focused on Fox’s need for a delivery system. “Timothy McVeigh rented a Rider truck to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building; Saddam doesn’t need an extensive delivery system,” he said.
Fox reiterated that the sanctions are not falling apart. “If there is a leak, you fix it,” she said. “You don’t destroy the entire pool.”
Closing the entire debate, Hartzell said: “We are at a crossroads of American history. Chris and Lynze want to follow the path of the past. They are trying to justify keeping up the sanctions and their negative effects. But those effects are killing millions of innocent people.”
The judges, Brian Kane, a former Fulton Debate winner, and Rita Rosenthal, professor of communication, and Ekaterina Haskins, professor of communication, voted for the negative side, two to one.
“Tonight is about tradition,” said John Katsulas, director of the debate, during the award presentation. “Boston College was founded in 1863 and we began debating in 1867. Father Fulton began debate in 1890, and tonight we celebrate all those years of BC debate.”
Schroeck was named second-place winner.
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article!